duncanjwitham

48 minutes ago, Yoxoram said:

Bird did nothing today, again. He is too slow, he can't tackle, he can't head a ball. I have absolutely no idea why people rate him. The sooner we get rid of him to Hull the better.

Nothing apart from assist the only goal we scored, with a header…

9 minutes ago, MACKWORTHRAM said:

I've seen people mention we don't have the personnel to play 352. I agree in part. I think the 3 at the back are fine. Wing backs are fine.

I’m not even sure that’s true. Cashin spent most of the game dealing with pacy wingers running at him, and making overlapping runs to cross, none of which is remotely in his skill set.  And I’m not convinced Ward is really a wingback either, they got numerous crosses in from his side, including the one for the second goal. 

3 at the back can absolutely work, if you are playing it to achieve something specific, and if you have the players to play it.  We seem to fit neither of those. We look no closer to have a squad capable of playing it, despite a bunch of signings.  And we seem intent on getting loads of crosses in the box, yet start with wingbacks (so your wide players are starting much deeper, have no support, and have to constantly worry about getting back to defend), and are playing a lone striker (so we get barely anybody in the box to get on the end of the crosses). 🤷‍♂️

57 minutes ago, Gladram said:

Seen these but there's a suggestion it's the wrong James Collins and it's actually a young lad from Watford. Journalists heard the name and picked the wrong one?

I was willing to believe that when it was some random on a message-board posting it, but I doubt local journalists would be making that kind of mistake.  Not that local journos are infallible or anything, but if they're anything like the ones we have, they'll have a had a quiet word with their contact at the club and at least got a rough idea what's going on.  Leigh Curtis and Dom Dietrich were both clearly getting some degree of inside info on the Max Bird bid rumours pretty quickly, for example.

It's still a rumour that literally makes no sense from our perspective though.

So I assume, regarding the "may not always be playing" bit, it's case of Fozzy was probably close but Hourihane won in the end, rather than Hourihane won't be playing every week?

2 minutes ago, angieram said:

Warne specifically addressed this point last night by saying he expects them to come from better set pieces. 

Whether he gets this is yet to be seen, but we have definitely looked more dangerous with these in pre-season.

That seems slightly optimistic to me. We definitely do look more dangerous from them (although it’s obviously only preseason etc), but I’d be concerned that the games where we struggle to breakdown teams, because we come up against a big, physical, well organised team, are going to be the games that we’ll find it harder to score from set pieces (for the exact same reasons).

I do wonder how often Warne faced this kind of opposition at Rotherham. I suspect a lot more teams were willing to rock up there and try and have a go, play a bit of football etc, than they do at Pride Park.  And I think his style of play is far more effective when you’re up against a footballing team than a defensive, physical one.

For me, the issue with not replacing McGoldrick isn’t necessarily the number of goals he scored, it’s the situations he scored them in.  The other day, I skimmed through his performances from last season, and there were half a dozen or so games where we really struggled to break down teams, and then McGoldrick was the one that got the goal or assist and we won.  I think we got 13 points off the back of those contributions alone.

That’s not to discount other players contributions in those performances or anything, but I do worry that we don’t really have anyone that can do that this season.  If Collins is being marked out of the game by 2 big centre halves, they’re sitting in a low block stifling us, who in this team at the moment, is going to drag a win out of that game somehow?  I’m not sure we have many players that can do that.  And I’m not sure it’s a problem you can solve by just running around more.

20 minutes ago, Caerphilly Ram said:

That first paragraph is an odd take. The general consensus even with the most opposed to Warne fans is that he’ll have the side running and working harder than a lot of opponents. Who do you see as being a passenger in the squad that’s largely been put together based on their character?

As a fully paid up member of the "most opposed to Warne fans", even I think he'll have them working hard.  If anything, he's got them working too hard - too much wasted effort running around, instead of getting control of the game, keeping the ball etc.

People do seem to have a weird fixation on blaming work-rate/laziness for every deficiency in a player's game.  I've seen strikers called lazy on here for dinking a shot rather than smashing it, players called lazy for under-hitting passes etc. Like people think the players just couldn't be bothered to kick it hard enough or something, instead of it being a genuine mistake, or a choice that just didn't pay off. 

2 minutes ago, CaptainOx said:

Randomly had a Shrewsbury fan asking me if I'd heard anything from my Derby supporting colleagues about a bid for Daniel Udoh.
Absolutely nothing heard when asking around. Thought I'd just pop it on here in case others have.

I saw someone on the Shrewsbury messageboard wondering if a swap deal (Udoh for Collins + cash) was on the cards, as a way of making sense of the Collins rumour.  I think that's all it was though.  And since the Collins rumour is almost certainly nonsense, I suspect this is too.

5 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Nothing to worry about then, miles apart on valuations. 

Depends entirely what the valuations are.  If they offered £1m and we want £5m then fine.  If they offered 50p and a Twix, and we're holding out for £1.50 and a six pack of Monster Munch then less fine.

26 minutes ago, sage said:

AS soon as CM with pace is mentioned, everyone gets obsessed with runs behind their defence. The most pressing lack of pace is dealing with people running through our midfield , especially on breakaways.  

That's my biggest concern. I don't really think any of the midfielders we have can really do what Warne wants them doing, they just aren't fit enough or mobile enough.  There were multiple instances last Saturday where they all bombed forward, we lost possession and then they were basically breaking 3-on-3 against our backline, because we couldn't chase back quickly enough.

32 minutes ago, Raich Carter said:

Which is why you need grafting full backs who are good decision makers to avoid that scenario - I.E. early crosses from deep (as we've seen in the pre-season games) so they can get back as opposed to driving the the by-line as that's a loooong way back. And that's why you have a back three to block/buy time for full backs to get back.

We had many great seasons under TBE playing this system and I personally love it - think it's much more dynamic and exciting that 4-4-2. 

You're basically agreeing with me there.  The original post I was responding too was suggesting that our wingbacks will be playing more like wingers, and stay pushed right up to get lots of crosses in.  And like you say, you can't do that because it's a long way back from there if you get caught out.  

My entire argument is that if you want to build your team around getting lots of crosses in, it makes no sense to play wingbacks, because you are basically making it difficult for your wide players to hit the byline and cross and you end up crossing from deep etc.

And yeah we were great playing a back 3 under Jim Smith, but that was 25 years ago (and a lot has changed in football since then), plus we very much weren't building our team around getting lots of crosses in, we were much more focussed on getting the ball into the feet of whoever was playing in behind the front 2 (Asanovic, Baiano etc).

2 minutes ago, Srg said:

Comparing any league one team in style to Man City is quite possibly the most pointless thing ever.

Absolutely. League one teams only have to do it against League One defences, so it should be so much easier to play possession football, yeah?

14 minutes ago, CodnorRam said:

Man city have some of the greatest footballers in the world yet they still concede daft goals being caught out at the back. How many years have we been trying to pass out from the back?. Man city are boring as hell to watch. Im solely on about the entertainment value , paying to watch the ball not leave our own half isnt something i liked spending money on 😃

Man City spent more time in their opponents defensive third than any other team in the league last season, and likewise, the least time in their own defensive third...

5 minutes ago, TomTom92 said:

I really can't see why we're recruiting in this manner.

As i've previously stated defensively the recruitment team have knocked it out the park, but in offence they've been found wanting so far. 

The way I see it, you're never going to get a player that's very good at everything.  You get some players that are bang average at everything (jack of all trades, master of none types), you get players that have some strengths and some glaring weaknesses, plus all the variations between those.  And the further you go down the leagues you go, the more extreme those things get. At prem level, your bang average players are still pretty good at everything (Jordan Henderson is a good example, I think - he's a decent all-rounder, but not really spectacular at anything).  And likewise, players at the other extreme are going to have a lot of strengths and only a few weaknesses.  

However at League One level, if you want a player that's really good at one or 2 things, you are going to have to accept that he's bad a lot of other stuff.  If you want a quick winger that can cross, you have to accept that he'll probably be injury-prone, or inconsistent, or lazy, or old, or can't finish, or can't pass or whatever.  A player that's good at all that stuff simply won't be available to League One clubs, he'll be playing at a higher level.

How that relates to us is if you make "works extremely hard" an absolute requirement for all signings, you are reducing the pool of potential players significantly.  You are instantly disregarding the likes of Chris Martin (I know, I know, he's just an easy example to use). If you want a striker that works extremely hard, you are going to have to accept that maybe he doesn't score goals or maybe he can't hold the ball up or whatever.  And that's why we're ending up with players like Conor Washington - he meets the one, fundamental requirement, and the rest will have to do.  And it's possibly why we're finding it harder to sign other players - there just aren't that many players available who are good at crossing/finishing/passing/whatever and also run themselves into the ground every week, and they're in high demand.

33 minutes ago, Jimbo Ram said:

Said they will be rotating in the midfield 2 or 3, didn’t he?

I think the implication was more that they would be rotation options for the midfield 2/3 as a whole (so cover etc for Bird, Hourihane etc), not that we would be rotating between those 2 for one of the spots.

4 minutes ago, Srg said:

The way you talk, there’s no point anyone playing this formation despite it being extremely common. 

No, I'm saying you play it for a specific reason.  Often it's because you want 3 men in midfield while still having 2 strikers on the pitch, so you compromise on being weaker out wide as a trade-off.  You take the risk of getting exposed out wide, or being less effective attacking in wider areas, because you want more control in midfield and an extra man in the box.

What doesn't make sense to me is, if you explicitly want to get wide players putting lots of crosses into the box, why play a system that, by design, leaves you weaker out wide?

8 minutes ago, David said:

Football has changed from the traditional winger setup, full backs are expected to cross the half way line, overlap the wide attackers who cut inside. 

We've seen it for years, even under McClaren who is widely regarded as bringing the most entertaining football we have seen for years, we had Forsyth pushed right up in the opposition half putting balls in.

At times, teams will be caught out, it's going to happen, it's how we scored our goals under Rowett, waiting for the opposition to commit, win the ball and exploit the gaps. 

If we revert to the traditional touchline hugging wingers with full backs refusing to cross the half way line, we will struggle to make any kind of impact going forward.

The suggestion that sparked all this was that our wingbacks would be playing like traditional wingers most of the time, pushed right up and staying wide.  That's not what modern fullbacks do, they have to support a winger, with the option to overlap when the game allows it, but they're still fundamentally playing as fullbacks.  So the majority of the time when we lose the ball out wide, the fullback is in behind covering.  Yes, sometimes it will break down and there will be gaps in behind, but in the setup people are suggesting we will be playing, if we lose the ball there's 80 yards of open space for the opposition to pour into *every* time.

3 minutes ago, Srg said:

You do realise this situation can happen with any other formation if you’re attacking enough?

It can obviously happen in a back 4 with wingers too, but it won't normally happen (or anywhere near as much at least) if you have a fullback covering behind.  The winger can push up as much as he likes then.  If you've only got one wide player on each side and you're explicitly telling them to push right up, you're basically setting out to deliberately engineer this situation.

1 hour ago, IlsonDerby said:

Eh? Davies fluffed up an easy back pass under a bit of pressure. Everything should have been well under control.

27 minutes ago, S8TY said:

This is simply not true regarding the Weds game 

we battered them in the first half and a mistake cost us from a back pass and should never have been a red card 

we battered a team who got promoted but didn’t score that’s the positives I took from that game 

That situation all comes from Knight getting caught up field, leaving a massive gap in behind him.  They get runners into that gap and that's what pressures Davies into the mistake.  

This is the build up to the penalty incident.  The red square is roughly where a traditional fullback would normally be.  The red circle is where Knight actually is, with Forsyth next to him, also caught upfield.  Davies ends up with the ball at is feet, with 2 opposing players on him quickly, with no cover and no passing options. Yes he fluffs up the backpass, but if you keep putting players into situations like that, they are going to make mistakes like that some of the time.

And the rest of the match doesn't really matter for the specific point I was making.  If you push your wingbacks right up, you are exposing yourself to situations like this, and sometimes that's going to cost you the game.  Like it did in this case.

"The Bobble Hat", is that Cockney rhyming slang for something? I can't imagine what... 😉

1 minute ago, Kokosnuss said:

...but at the same time, it's the sort of stuff Warne had Rotherham doing in the season they went up in 2nd place, scoring 70 league goals and only conceding 33 so the concept clearly does work. Not that that season wasn't without its issues but it's proof of concept.

Whether we've recruited the suitable players time will tell, although I'm not 100% confident that we've got or are getting the right mix up front and in AM as currently we're lacking a few of the key elements which ultimately made that season a success.

It regularly resulted in his teams burning out later in the season.  And we're already in the position where half of the squad still aren't "Paul Warne-type players", and a bunch of the new signings have missed some or most of pre-season and will be chasing those crazy fitness-levels for quite a while.

It's also failed catastrophically every time it was tried at Championship level, where the opposition are basically all fitter and/or more talented than in League One.  You *might* be able to get hold of a couple of wingbacks who can do the job of a  L1 winger and a L1 fullback at the same time.  The pool of players that can do the job of a Championship winger and fullback at the same time, is significantly smaller.  And I suspect at prem level it's non-existent.

3 minutes ago, Srg said:

Which is the beauty of the formation, if that's the case, they drop back, much more than wingers do.

Problem is, when we've played this formation in the past, not just this past season, we've not had any actual wing backs in the squad. It's a specialist position, and we shoe-horned every time.

But if they drop back that far, then all of your attacking threat is gone, if you're building your team around lots of crosses from the wide players.  You can't simultaneously have players pushed right up and sat right back.  And if you want players literally sprinting from goal line to goal line to try and do that (which is what I believe Warne thinks should happen), then you're just going to end up with players so tired that they don't do either job properly.  If Jason Knight isn't capable of running around enough to do the job you want, then I'm not sure anyone is. 

And for what it's worth, Elder has never played wingback in his career (as far as I can see), and the Peterborough fans all seem to think Ward is far better as a winger than a wingback 🤷‍♂️.

2 minutes ago, Srg said:

I suspect there'll be plenty of times when our wing backs are so high they are basically wingers. Then we'll end up with with almost 5 attackers on the pitch giving great options on the ball but also starting the press and making it tough for the opposition to get out, but still keep the defensive integrity of 3 at the back and a midfielder sitting.

But the problem there is we get killed if/when they do break on us.  The penalty against Sheff Wed in the final game was exactly that - Jason Knight gets caught up field and they're basically immediately running straight at Curtis Davies.

Cashin isn't exactly the quickest, and I don't think Bradley is either, so the last thing we want is to set up situations where the opposition get to run at them repeatedly during games.

1 hour ago, IlsonDerby said:

The principles of what he wants to do aren’t bad. High press. Wingbacks high up the pitch. Loads of width. Crosses going in and goals scored. 
 

My only worry is that when we do the high press I don’t feel like it’s been coached that well into them. We don’t seem to go in packs. We seem to just run towards the player in possession and then when he moves the ball along we run to the next player. It often means that teams can play through our press and that’s why we end up feeling like teams attack us quite easily (in my opinion). 

I don't get the "want loads of crosses" thing in combinations with playing wingbacks.  If you want loads of crosses, then why make it harder for your wide players to get forward and cross it?  Just play wingers + fullbacks and then your wingers can get forward with proper support, and protection behind them.  I assume he's doing it because he also wants 2 forwards on the pitch, and you can't really get away without 3 in midfield in modern football.  But if you can't execute your strategy, without actively undermining it, then maybe change your strategy?